Ok, this discussion will focus primarily on the choice for objectives someone will choose for a tournament.

So, after going through my objectives last night and going over each ability I have found something interesting. I think no point objectives will see less use in tournament play while static point objectives will see some use but not much.

Here is my thought process on this. The current MoV chart in a tournament is a close one. The loss of 51 points (the cost of a TRC90, coincidence? Maybe) means you no longer have a 10-0 (a change I approve), from there the 9-1 bracket is 129 points wide. That want if you get 220 you are in the 9-1.

Now, what does this have to do with objective selection? I think that Precision Strike, Fire Lanes, Contested Outpost, and Superior Positions will be taken more and more over other objectives. This is because loss of ships and squadrons are much heavier in this wave than previously.

They are riskier to play for sure but as a player you can consistently get more points per turn from them to mitigate your losses in a game. A single turn of Fire Lanes can give you 45 points. That means you can lose one of those 4 TRC90's and still get a 10-0. That is BIG!

Now, why are the others not as good? Well, I believe that Most Wanted (max points gained is 120), Advanced Gunnery (another one with a limited point gain), Dangerous Territory (pinnacle of the meh choice), and Intel Sweep (a great speed 2 objectives that only gives you 75 points. . . Maybe) because they are not going to give you a great point advantage over your opponent.

Don't get me started on Opening Salvo. . . Worthless objective. . .

Objectives that don't provide points such as Hyperspace Assault, Mine Fields, and Fleet Ambush are nice but they only provide a small tactical advantage while not providing any mitigation to the loss of ships so I think these will be seen in competitive lists less and less.

Discuss!

Objectives that don't provide points such as Hyperspace Assault, Mine Fields, and Fleet Ambush are nice but they only provide a small tactical advantage while not providing any mitigation to the loss of ships so I think these will be seen in competitive lists less and less.

Eh. I disagree. Just because they're not worth their own inherent points, doesn't mean they don't skew the points in your favour by providing that positioning...

... After watching a Demolisher go straight through an enemy ISD Turns 1 and start of 2 that barely got a chance to activate after being ambushed....

... After watching the Hyperspacing MC30 double-side arc the enemy ISD that was blocked in...

Those are, readily, large bonuses to your MoV, and often do so in such a way that preserves your own points... I mean, an AFMK-II or MC30 in Hyperspace assault is Nigh Invulnerable...

I find that Precision Strike is actually being taken less and less in my Meta... That could be because the Rhymer balls are starting to come out - I'd take it, because it gives me an advantage.... But my opponent has a bundle of squadrons too, and it was in his choice of objectives to have, so why wouldn't he take it as well?

Its a bit rough that way.

I feel like the defence and navigation objectives are fairly straight forward to put into a list but the assault objectives typically also benefit your opponent. I choose less precision strike because there are more and more bombers. I don't want to take advance gunnery because that gives the enemy's MC80 the gunnery teams it wants, Opening salvo is terrible for any short ranged list (gladiators, raiders etc). So that leaves most wanted, and even then your enemy has extra attack dice versus one of your ships.

I would like to see more objectives introduced into this game just for a bit more variety especially a red objective that doesn't directly benefit the opponent. For example how about ​Surprise Attack - ​The second player my choose to activate 1 small or medium ship at the start of the turn before the player with the initiative, that ship cannot activate again this turn. ​(Just as an Idea).

Objectives that don't provide points such as Hyperspace Assault, Mine Fields, and Fleet Ambush are nice but they only provide a small tactical advantage while not providing any mitigation to the loss of ships so I think these will be seen in competitive lists less and less.

Eh. I disagree. Just because they're not worth their own inherent points, doesn't mean they don't skew the points in your favour by providing that positioning...

... After watching a Demolisher go straight through an enemy ISD Turns 1 and start of 2 that barely got a chance to activate after being ambushed....

... After watching the Hyperspacing MC30 double-side arc the enemy ISD that was blocked in...

Those are, readily, large bonuses to your MoV, and often do so in such a way that preserves your own points... I mean, an AFMK-II or MC30 in Hyperspace assault is Nigh Invulnerable...

I find that Precision Strike is actually being taken less and less in my Meta... That could be because the Rhymer balls are starting to come out - I'd take it, because it gives me an advantage.... But my opponent has a bundle of squadrons too, and it was in his choice of objectives to have, so why wouldn't he take it as well?

Its a bit rough that way.

I disagree with your assessment on the Hyperspace Assault. I find that when they do drop, my play style has those areas covered and I can deal with them well enough even it it means taking a hit.

Demolisher is a reason why not to take Fleet Ambush, so is letting Ackbar get ships in long range from turn 1.

Sure they might keep your ships alive to a degree, but if you lose 181 points you only have a 8-2 Victory. That can lead to a loss in a tournament if more games go like that. So having objectives that allow you to boost your losses so that the 8-2 is better is a good thing, especially when you are facing against stronger opponents.

I feel like the defence and navigation objectives are fairly straight forward to put into a list but the assault objectives typically also benefit your opponent. I choose less precision strike because there are more and more bombers. I don't want to take advance gunnery because that gives the enemy's MC80 the gunnery teams it wants, Opening salvo is terrible for any short ranged list (gladiators, raiders etc). So that leaves most wanted, and even then your enemy has extra attack dice versus one of your ships.

I would like to see more objectives introduced into this game just for a bit more variety especially a red objective that doesn't directly benefit the opponent. For example how about ​Surprise Attack - ​The second player my choose to activate 1 small or medium ship at the start of the turn before the player with the initiative, that ship cannot activate again this turn. ​(Just as an Idea).

People choose Precision Strike because of their bombers but I don't. I will gladly use it in a list with no bombers. Give me Assault Proton Torpedoes and I am even happier. It is like Superior Positions, you don't need squadrons to make it good, people just have the conception that you do.

This is a very valid points ! To further your point about Assault Objectives, I feel that because they benefit your opponent, you must better make **** sure that even if they take it your fleet can leverage more from it than a mirror fleet.

For example, Advanced Gunnery in an Imperial Fleet, you must make sure that the boat you put it into will have the ability to pound the enemy into submissions when it gets the shots (large number of dices and brutal upgrades). Precision Strike you must make **** sure that your fighter/bomber capabilities are outmatching another squadron build. Opening Salvos making it count by having more red dice than the opponent to throw, so the 2 blues/black you add go on a more punishing roll rather than adding a few extra dice to a mediocre roll. Most Wanted, having the cheapest ships possible obviously.

EDIT : **** Lyraeus, you wrote while I was typing

You can run Precision Strike in a list without Bombers, but precision strikes is about the number of attacks rather than the strength of ships. Throwing 8 dice and burning 6 of them to flip cards face up will rack up more points than one big attack with a single crit

Mixed feelings on this. In a lot of my competitive list writing I'd agree, I lean towards missions that give me points for doing things my fleets already good at. That said, are you sure you want to write of Opening Salvo? MC30s with Ordinance Experts, APTs and Dodonna throwing black dice turn 1 is quite the alpha strike if you're trying to table your opponent!

It's almost like different objectives work well in different lists...

Objectives worth points will play towards the MOV well, but they always risk giving those points to your opponent as well, that part really comes down to matchup.

Opening Salvo is a beautiful, beautiful objective, when you don't particularly care about going 10-0, but just want to win by going the 8-2 route. 60 points for just putting 1 damage onto the hull of an ISD2, that can otherwise be avoided? Yes please. Punch that damage into place with APT at long range because "surprise black dice"? Even better.

I would like to see more objectives introduced into this game just for a bit more variety especially a red objective that doesn't directly benefit the opponent. For example how about ​Surprise Attack - ​The second player my choose to activate 1 small or medium ship at the start of the turn before the player with the initiative, that ship cannot activate again this turn. ​(Just as an Idea).

So you want an objective which doesnt benefit the person who has chosen to take the card? And furthermore allows the second player to choose to be first player having just chosen to be second player by having lower initative?

Objectives should benefit both players in different ways. One person has chosen to take the card for a reason, the other has chosen to play that card on the day.

Opening Salvo is a beautiful, beautiful objective, when you don't particularly care about going 10-0, but just want to win by going the 8-2 route. 60 points for just putting 1 damage onto the hull of an ISD2, that can otherwise be avoided? Yes please. Punch that damage into place with APT at long range because "surprise black dice"? Even better.

Now in casual play or fun tournaments play what you want but I still think that in the tournament circuit that the no point objectives will be seen less at the top tables.

EDIT : **** Lyraeus, you wrote while I was typing

You can run Precision Strike in a list without Bombers, but precision strikes is about the number of attacks rather than the strength of ships. Throwing 8 dice and burning 6 of them to flip cards face up will rack up more points than one big attack with a single crit

So let's go over this, if you are running 8 bombers, that means you likely have few ships and upgrades that can really threaten an ISD too suddenly or even a MC80. Sure you will get more shots but there is a downside. All I need to do is to push a damage through and I can start making points.

Assault Proton Torpedoes are the Precision Strike love child.

Remember that you can only spend 1 hit to flip the damage card so on a black dice a hit/crit can be completely negated this way since you spend the die.

At best you can get 30 points from 1 attack. This is with Dodonna's Pride, or Assault Proton Torpedoes and that is after spending a hit to flip a card.

Mixed feelings on this. In a lot of my competitive list writing I'd agree, I lean towards missions that give me points for doing things my fleets already good at. That said, are you sure you want to write of Opening Salvo? MC30s with Ordinance Experts, APTs and Dodonna throwing black dice turn 1 is quite the alpha strike if you're trying to table your opponent!

It's almost like different objectives work well in different lists...

Objectives worth points will play towards the MOV well, but they always risk giving those points to your opponent as well, that part really comes down to matchup.

Follow my line of thinking. What benefits you more. Half points for not killing something or just straight out killing it? All the while you are also giving up half points for your ships that have harder times ridding themselves of damage.

On top of that, would you like half points for a live ship or would you like 15 to 30 points an attack with that MC30 with Ordnance Experts, APT's on top of the points for killing the ship?

Every time I play opening Salvo I am giving away a hundred points or more.

Now there's another difference in playstyles...

I Fear this thread is another set of generalisation that get caught up on the different playstyles vs different metas hookup...

:/

Remember everyone, Opening Salvo does not give you extra points for dead ships. So if you table someone you can actually end up feeding them a few hundred points in damaged ships.

Of course this is mitigated by the fact that you have to finish the turn now so if you had engineering planned you could maybe get rid of all the cards. . .

Every time I play opening Salvo I am giving away a hundred points or more.

Now there's another difference in playstyles...

I Fear this thread is another set of generalisation that get caught up on the different playstyles vs different metas hookup...

:/

In the end this has less to do with an individuals play style though do to being about the upper echelon of tournaments such as Regionals, Nationals, and Worlds.

Every time I play opening Salvo I am giving away a hundred points or more.

Now there's another difference in playstyles...

I Fear this thread is another set of generalisation that get caught up on the different playstyles vs different metas hookup...

:/

Well maybe. This is a discussion on objectives. Each player will have a different meta to cater too and I am coming from a squadron heavy meta where Mikael Hasselstein forced Rhymerball's down everyone's throats for a time.

In the end this has less to do with an individuals play style though do to being about the upper echelon of tournaments such as Regionals, Nationals, and Worlds.

But that's my point... I disagreed, and in disagreeing I was told I was wrong.

I certainly feel that all of the objectives, not just the pointed ones, are all risk/reward gains... Doubly so if your objective will favour your opponent as much as me...

I don't think the discussion can go beyond the individual meta, until at some point, we can prove there is a meta beyond it, such as Regionals, Nationals and Worlds, as you put it...

But, I've said my piece. I'll never be able to do anything beyond the Store level anyway.

I dont like that the question is "how do you score 10-0 in tournaments?" and not "how do you use objectives to scupper your opponents tactics?"

Every time I play opening Salvo I am giving away a hundred points or more.

Now there's another difference in playstyles...

I Fear this thread is another set of generalisation that get caught up on the different playstyles vs different metas hookup...

:/

Well maybe. This is a discussion on objectives. Each player will have a different meta to cater too and I am coming from a squadron heavy meta where Mikael Hasselstein forced Rhymerball's down everyone's throats for a time.

In the end this has less to do with an individuals play style though do to being about the upper echelon of tournaments such as Regionals, Nationals, and Worlds.

But that's my point... I disagreed, and in disagreeing I was told I was wrong.

I certainly feel that all of the objectives, not just the pointed ones, are all risk/reward gains... Doubly so if your objective will favour your opponent as much as me...

I don't think the discussion can go beyond the individual meta, until at some point, we can prove there is a meta beyond it, such as Regionals, Nationals and Worlds, as you put it...

But, I've said my piece. I'll never be able to do anything beyond the Store level anyway.

Tournament meta is already established though. At least from what I see.

What I mean by that is that tournament meta is based on what people think others will bring. This way they will play to counter terms those styles of lists. This is how all major tournaments work out.

You will hear of guys saying that they practiced against what they most likely expect to see and will tune out weaknesses. This is just my experience from watching, listening to, and talking to those who have done every style of tournament from Wargames to Card Games.

I dont like that the question is "how do you score 10-0 in tournaments?" and not "how do you use objectives to scupper your opponents tactics?"

You are welcome.

So let's go over this, if you are running 8 bombers, that means you likely have few ships and upgrades that can really threaten an ISD too suddenly or even a MC80. Sure you will get more shots but there is a downside. All I need to do is to push a damage through and I can start making points.

Assault Proton Torpedoes are the Precision Strike love child.

Remember that you can only spend 1 hit to flip the damage card so on a black dice a hit/crit can be completely negated this way since you spend the die.

At best you can get 30 points from 1 attack. This is with Dodonna's Pride, or Assault Proton Torpedoes and that is after spending a hit to flip a card.

It implies that there already are damage cards dealt on, while Pride is more efficient through the shields and APT works both without or without shield (in that sense APT takes more advantage of Dodonna's Pride). But how long can you sustain this while brawling with the opponent (and in his preferred engagement range if you're against Imperials) ? Especially on crits that only have a 25% chance per dice.

If there is already a damage card on the ship, or if the ship has no more shields remaining, fighters can get 15 points per attack (flipping the card if they get a hit or just taking the 15 points for the crits). After the enemy has redirected his damage to a shield zone that you can't hit with your ships, you can throw in the bombers (which you will have geared as a means to reliably burn through a fighter screen) and potentially get 15 points per attack on a 62.5% chance for the X-Wings and 75% for black dice bombers (and B-Wings being able to get 30 points if they're lucky ).

EDIT : Considering that the MC30 has roughly 75% per volley or 3 dice to score at least a crit, it has the same chances of raking up points as a measly Y-Wing... who costs 10 points I'm not saying you can't have Precision Strikes without spamming Bombers, but that overall they'll yield much more points due to more attacks and having a similar chance.

My calculation are a bit simplistic obviously, because the chances to get at least a hit from a ship to flip a card face down is equivalent if not higher than the fighters. But with squadrons you give yourself more opportunities to achieve the same amount of points.

With Dodonna and small glass canon ship spam, I would rather go for something like opening salvo or most wanted depending on whether I'm a gambler

I don't see precision strike as Alpha Strike through the shields as much as I see it as predatory maneuvering finishing up ships that are already damaged and getting tons of points in the process

Hmmm well this is certainly true MoffZen.

Remember though that the MC30 can also flip a card and still deal the crit where the Y-Wing cannot do that. Rebels do have the advantage in Bombers though. The issue lies in that they can possibly get bogged down and having that many bombers can be an issue if the opponent is also running something similar.

Dodonna's Pride can still get 30 points. You flip a card then use the ability to deal a crit.

When considering Precision Strike I always look at it from the aspect of at least 1 damage already dealt facedown. This is because it is easy to do these days. Even if I sacrifice a Raider to do so.

In the end though it comes down to your ideology of what an acceptable risk is. I know that to me this is an acceptable risk.

I feel that this is not a popular discussion. . . I don't understand why that is

I think it's because Wave 2 hasn't really changed the core of the gameplay around the objectives and we've discussed it lengthily already

One objective I'd love to see discussed though is Intel Sweep. I've never ever seen it played and it's quite scary to broadcast where your objective ship is going to go.

I think it's because Wave 2 hasn't really changed the core of the gameplay around the objectives and we've discussed it lengthily already

One objective I'd love to see discussed though is Intel Sweep. I've never ever seen it played and it's quite scary to broadcast where your objective ship is going to go.

That is an interesting one. You usually don't want to select it if you are first player because even a speed 2 ship can pick up the tokens easily.

Interesting, so it really favours big ships to force the opponent into crossing their paths ?

Interesting, so it really favours big ships to force the opponent into crossing their paths ?

It can. You can alos use small ships.